1. So if Zomet decides (based on their acceptance from THEIR rabbi/s whoever they may be) that something is prohibited then end of discussion? Any other rav's opinion is not relevant? Very nice, they believe this product is problematic due to the issue of grama. This is called a machlokes. Because ("newsflash"), there are other bonafide poskim who disagree and see that this technology avoids the problem of grama to begin with (R' Shternbuch clearly being one of them by saying "it's not grama, it's better than grama"). Why do they make it sound like they have the final word in the technology/Halacha field? And what do they mean no acrobatic means will help change the circumstances, they especially ought to know that with much thanks to HKBH we have the capability of avoiding issurim by use of technology today (the list is long).
2. So they're saying that R' Neuwirth all along only permitted for the sick and security reasons; why didn't he clarify this extremely crucial point in his first handwritten endorsement? If we are dealing with a product that in his opinon is strictly prohibited for personal use, wouldn't he have explicitly state this to begin with? We're dealing here with d'oraysah! And then he writes for the company his the first time around such warm words and blessing for success while he is skeptical with the product all along?
3. If R' Nebanzhel didn't recall this whole ordeal at all, shouldn't they have been respectful enough and help him refresh his memory by perhaps showing him what he wrote originaly or simply rehash the whole "inyan" again in cooperation with the company themselves (the original people who heard it directly from him) rather than having him contradict himself?
4. The kosherswitch website has photos of themselves meeting with the rabbanim together with their product being presented, and Zomet is wondering how they could have fooled the rabbonim into writing wht they did? I wonder too, if the product was being displayed and examined thoroughly in front of these rabbonim there are two possibilities; either they lied and intentionally somehow concealed the....what? What could they have done? Look at the prototype on their site. How can you mispresent it? Even if your able to conjur something up, it is still hard to believe that they took that chance in front of people who were there and would have called them out. Besides the fact that I find it disturbing that these rabbonim would sign something which they don't fully understand what is going on. Unless of course, the other possibilty is that in reality the rabbonim did indeed agree at the time but have since then changed their mind.
These new "qoutes" and "letters" surfacing are making these poskim look very inconsistent.
the accusation is that the haskamah waas given for hospital or defense use and the condition was deleted over their signatures. This is a very serious accusation and it will require checking with all involved before anyone uses this device.
This is not in Igros Moishe but a rov sent a verbal shaylah with a shaliach to R' Moishe to ask about putting a timer on a dishwasher. R' Moishe answered that meikker hadin tziz mutter but he will not be mattir because it's ain ledavar sof. They can put timers on buses and airplanes and you have no musag of kedushas Shabbos left.
One rosh yeshiva who is a posek wants to say that the machmirim on timers will be mattir on air conditioners if it is extremely hot and a threat to health.
The cynic in me wants to know if Tzomet is developing a competing device. And haven't they had their own fair share of gedolim taking issue with their shitos?
For the cynics and for the non-cynics: to the best of my knowledge Zomet is not developing a similar device; they've had devices on the market for use in security and medical contexts for decades, approved by poskim gedolim, with no retractions. Perhaps daastorah will post the second page of the letter from Zomet, which relates to some of the halakhic considerations and to what gedolim have said about this. It also relates to the existence of different views on some aspects of this question, of which Rav Rosen and Zomet are fully aware. The existence of legitimate differences of opinion on halakhic matters does not mean all views are legitimate; conversely, suggesting that one view is not legitimate does not mean one denies the existence of a variety of legitimate views.
Translation?
ReplyDeleteSome please help me out here;
ReplyDelete1. So if Zomet decides (based on their acceptance from THEIR rabbi/s whoever they may be) that something is prohibited then end of discussion? Any other rav's opinion is not relevant? Very nice, they believe this product is problematic due to the issue of grama. This is called a machlokes. Because ("newsflash"), there are other bonafide poskim who disagree and see that this technology avoids the problem of grama to begin with (R' Shternbuch clearly being one of them by saying "it's not grama, it's better than grama"). Why do they make it sound like they have the final word in the technology/Halacha field? And what do they mean no acrobatic means will help change the circumstances, they especially ought to know that with much thanks to HKBH we have the capability of avoiding issurim by use of technology today (the list is long).
2. So they're saying that R' Neuwirth all along only permitted for the sick and security reasons; why didn't he clarify this extremely crucial point in his first handwritten endorsement? If we are dealing with a product that in his opinon is strictly prohibited for personal use, wouldn't he have explicitly state this to begin with? We're dealing here with d'oraysah! And then he writes for the company his the first time around such warm words and blessing for success while he is skeptical with the product all along?
3. If R' Nebanzhel didn't recall this whole ordeal at all, shouldn't they have been respectful enough and help him refresh his memory by perhaps showing him what he wrote originaly or simply rehash the whole "inyan" again in cooperation with the company themselves (the original people who heard it directly from him) rather than having him contradict himself?
4. The kosherswitch website has photos of themselves meeting with the rabbanim together with their product being presented, and Zomet is wondering how they could have fooled the rabbonim into writing wht they did? I wonder too, if the product was being displayed and examined thoroughly in front of these rabbonim there are two possibilities; either they lied and intentionally somehow concealed the....what? What could they have done? Look at the prototype on their site. How can you mispresent it? Even if your able to conjur something up, it is still hard to believe that they took that chance in front of people who were there and would have called them out. Besides the fact that I find it disturbing that these rabbonim would sign something which they don't fully understand what is going on. Unless of course, the other possibilty is that in reality the rabbonim did indeed agree at the time but have since then changed their mind.
These new "qoutes" and "letters" surfacing are making these poskim look very inconsistent.
I recall that Rav Moshe Feinstein was not keen about Shabbos timers.
ReplyDeleteRav Moshe paskened you can't use a timer to turn an air conditioner on/off on Shabbos.
ReplyDeletethe accusation is that the haskamah waas given for hospital or defense use and the condition was deleted over their signatures. This is a very serious accusation and it will require checking with all involved before anyone uses this device.
ReplyDeleteThis is not in Igros Moishe but a rov sent a verbal shaylah with a shaliach to R' Moishe to ask about putting a timer on a dishwasher. R' Moishe answered that meikker hadin tziz mutter but he will not be mattir because it's ain ledavar sof. They can put timers on buses and airplanes and you have no musag of kedushas Shabbos left.
ReplyDeleteOne rosh yeshiva who is a posek wants to say that the machmirim on timers will be mattir on air conditioners if it is extremely hot and a threat to health.
The cynic in me wants to know if Tzomet is developing a competing device. And haven't they had their own fair share of gedolim taking issue with their shitos?
ReplyDeleteYeah Lakewooder,
ReplyDeleteI'm no cynic but I'm still wondering the same thing. I'd venture to say were not the only two.
For the cynics and for the non-cynics: to the best of my knowledge Zomet is not developing a similar device; they've had devices on the market for use in security and medical contexts for decades, approved by poskim gedolim, with no retractions. Perhaps daastorah will post the second page of the letter from Zomet, which relates to some of the halakhic considerations and to what gedolim have said about this. It also relates to the existence of different views on some aspects of this question, of which Rav Rosen and Zomet are fully aware. The existence of legitimate differences of opinion on halakhic matters does not mean all views are legitimate; conversely, suggesting that one view is not legitimate does not mean one denies the existence of a variety of legitimate views.
ReplyDelete